U.S. AIMS ANTI-DRUG MESSAGES AT MOVIES

Critics Say Government Went Too Far With TV

WASHINGTON -- White House drug policy-makers, undeterred by the flak they
caught earlier this year for quietly trying to sprinkle anti-drug messages
into some of the nation's most popular television shows, want to expand
into a new arena: the silver screen.

Federal officials plan to ``leverage popular movies'' by working more
closely with major studios, writers and directors to promote films that
``responsibly communicate (anti-drug) campaign messages,'' according to a
plan that Gen. Barry McCaffrey, director of the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy, is expected to disclose today in
congressional testimony.

``As powerful as television is, some experts believe that movies have an
even stronger impact on young people,'' according to McCaffrey's statement.

McCaffrey's push on the cinematic front may reopen a furious debate over
how far government should go to get its anti-drug message out to young people.

In January, McCaffrey weathered fierce criticism from congressional
critics, civil libertarians and creative forces in the television industry
when it was disclosed that his office quietly had been giving major TV
networks millions of dollars' worth of financial credit for incorporating
positive anti-drug messages in popular shows such as ``E.R.,'' ``Beverly
Hills 90210,'' ``Cosby'' and others.

The unusual arrangement grew out of 1997 congressional legislation that
authorized McCaffrey's office to spend as much as $1 billion over five
years to get anti-drug messages in the popular media.

White House drug officials said the campaign has been so successful that,
by their count, the vast majority of children 12 to 17 are exposed to more
than eight paid anti-drug advertisements each week, plus many subtler
messages contained in programmed entertainment.

But critics said the campaign amounts to Orwellian-like censorship by the
government, using hidden financial incentives to get its message into
standard programming fare.

The draft of McCaffrey's plan does not discuss whether he plans to use
financial incentives to influence the content of movies, as has happened in
television.

Bob Weiner, a spokesman for McCaffrey, said the White House drug office has
bought a limited number of anti-drug trailer ads to be shown in theaters
before movies.

Weiner said that to his knowledge all of the movie studios and theater
owners that screened those trailers met matching requirements by showing
additional public service trailers, not by submitting claims for movies
with anti-drug messages.

``But if the movies choose to do that, they can submit it to our
contractors, after the movie is completed, for review for credit,'' he added.

Officials on Capitol Hill and in Hollywood said they would be wary of any
efforts by McCaffrey to expand his reach into the movie industry.

Andy Zahn, an executive with the DreamWorks studio who deals with political
outreach, noted that there have been a number of efforts over the years to
incorporate more positive portrayals in the movies on subjects like the
environment, alcohol abuse and seat belts.

But the groups pushing those causes usually are not associated with the
government, which has greater power to impose its will, he added.

``If this is something that's not positioned as a joint, cooperative
effort,'' he said of McCaffrey's comments, ``it will have a hard time
getting any traction.''